Vcore 3.1 Rear Z arm slides down under weight of bed

Just upgraded from 3.0 to 3.1 on the Z axis, with wobbleX. As per the title the rear z arm slides down by like 15 cm. I am unable to home properly unless I manually twist the z hold in place and then home. Then the motors get energized and I'm good. 3.0 Z design had a ANTI-BACKLASH NUT BLOCK, that you could tension to stop this from happening. 3.1 doesn't seem to have any such consideration. Curious many others wouldn't have the same problem, yet I don't see any posts. Am I missing something, or some part? Much appreciated
No description
21 Replies
Helge Keck
Helge Keck•2y ago
chech the couplers grub screw and check if the oldham coupler is screwed in correctly
ptegler
ptegler•2y ago
spring loaded POM nuts solved that for me
ptegler
ptegler•2y ago
No description
Helge Keck
Helge Keck•2y ago
this is not normal you should not need and not use these springs at all this cant be the reason why it went down thats basically impossible you must have forget something else
Vindikkator
VindikkatorOP•2y ago
I'm using the wobbleX design here. So there is only the basic POM nut.
Vindikkator
VindikkatorOP•2y ago
GitHub
Interfaces-for-WobbleX-integration/RatRig/VCore3.1 at main · Mirage...
CADs and STLs that can be adapted to various 3D printers in order to benefit from the best Z wobble management system. - Interfaces-for-WobbleX-integration/RatRig/VCore3.1 at main · MirageC79/Inter...
Vindikkator
VindikkatorOP•2y ago
No description
Vindikkator
VindikkatorOP•2y ago
Maybe I will have to try this
Helge Keck
Helge Keck•2y ago
trust me, on a v-core, the ratrig oldham couplers are superior i do also spot misaligned leadscrews and btw, you CAN NOT use the oldhams on the wobble x arms thats not possible thats the reason why it went down you need to use the original ratrig arms, where you can screw down the oldhams to the arm you didnt do that this is not working
Helge Keck
Helge Keck•2y ago
No description
Helge Keck
Helge Keck•2y ago
you see that, there are two screws that mount the oldham to the arm without that it will never work i highly suggest to stick with the stock configuration for the arms
Vindikkator
VindikkatorOP•2y ago
Very interesting. I thought the WobbleX was superior to the stock oldhams...
Helge Keck
Helge Keck•2y ago
they are not
Vindikkator
VindikkatorOP•2y ago
The two screws with the Radial Ball Bearing at the top I am still using. Just not the oldham couple. So you have no z artifacts at all with the stock step with a tall print? With input shaping on?
Helge Keck
Helge Keck•2y ago
well, you can do whatever you want, but mixing wobble arsm and oldhams doesnt work. they are jsut incompatible i can clearly see in your photo that you havent screwd the oldhams down
Vindikkator
VindikkatorOP•2y ago
Yes they seem incompatible. I never used the stock 3.1. I just upgrded from 3.0 to 3.1, and thinking the wobbleX is superior. At least thats what I was told.
Helge Keck
Helge Keck•2y ago
they are defintely not superior on a v-core in fact they are worse
Vindikkator
VindikkatorOP•2y ago
Oh you mean this part is not screwed down?
No description
Vindikkator
VindikkatorOP•2y ago
Yeah that defeats the purpose of the WobbleX letting the lead screw move freely. Though it does look like I now have this problem.... Oh shoot that is worse....
ptegler
ptegler•2y ago
agree...to disagree. Agreed... should not 'need' 'Not' use? I've never seen any lead screw system that desires zero backlash, NOT use a setscrew spread or spring load nut. Even the half nut on my lathe use a spring to set zero lash when engaging the screw (shoves the two halves in opposite directions). For a V-core, simply relying on gravity (and hopefully no Z linear rail stiction) does not fit my sensibilities (nor decades of experience) BUT... everyone needs to follow their comfort zone. ...old joke.... if you're following me, you must be lost too! 🙂

Did you find this page helpful?